offender must be blameworthy and that an offender deserves punishment simply because he has offended, and so his punishment must relate to his wrongdoing. It can, therefore, be said to be backward-looking. The theory of retributivism does propose a number of purposes of punishment: to restore the balance (whether according to Lex Talionis or the Unfair Advantage Principle), to openly and emphatically denounce crime, or to provide satisfaction. The principles of distribution can be derived from these purposes. There are 3 main methods for deciding on punishment. The first is in accordance with Lex Talionis; that punishment should be equal or equivalent to the crime. The second is the culpability principle; that punishment should be in proportion to the harmfulness and blameworthiness of an offender's actions. The third is in accordance with the grievance principle; that punishment should give satisfaction equal to the grievances caused. Critique of retributivism The above explanations for deciding on punishment raise a few issues: The idea of equal or equivalent punishment, however, proves to be impractical. How can the equivalent of sexual assault be found in any current punishment? To decide on punishment in terms of satisfaction in accordance with grievances caused is also questionable. Honderich [1989:34] says that punishment is not wholly justified and liberalized in terms of the offence, but provides “the contention that a man’s punishment must provide satisfactions”. However, if punishment is not wholly dependent on the offence, but is in part to do with satisfaction, then it is in part, consequentialist (and therefore not retributive). The culpability principle is often used in deciding the punishment of offenders. However, there are large numbers of punishments handed down which do not obey this principle. Particularly, this is the case where the harmfulness and blameworthiness of offender's actions are not proportionate to the punishment. For example, in Australia the punishment for speeding up to 30 km over the legal speed limit is 3 demerit points. The punishment for a passenger of your vehicle not wearing their seatbelt is 3 demerit points. According to the retributivist explanation of punishment, two offences that have the same punishment should be fairly similar in terms of the harmfulness and blameworthiness. However, in this example it can be seen that this is not the case. Therefore, it can be seen that retributivist theories are not adequate to explain why and how we punish. Retributivism as a justification for